Measuring the effects of small group deliberation on public attitudes towards sentencing : benefits and challenges

This article reports on the outcomes of small group deliberations on levels of punitiveness and public confidence in the sentencing functions of Australian criminal courts, conducted as part of a larger project investigating public attitudes to sentencing. One hypothesis of the project as a whole was that a more informed and involved public is likely to be less punitive in their views on the sentencing of offenders, and to express less cynical views about the role of sentencing courts. The aim of the small group deliberations as part of the broader project was to engender a more thoughtful and considered approach by participants to issues around sentencing. It was hypothesised that the opportunity to discuss, deliberate and consider would lead to a measurable reduction in punitiveness and an increase in people’s confidence in the courts. While the results do indeed indicate such changes in attitudes, the current study also shed light on some of the conceptual, methodological and practical challenges inherent in this type of research.

Once a Criminal, Always a Criminal?: ‘Redeemability’ and the Psychology of Punitive Public Attitudes

Several studies have sought to link punitive public attitudes to attribution style and/or lay theories of crime. This research finds that those who believe criminal acts are the result of freely chosen and willful behavior are more likely to be punitive than those who feel crime is the result of external circumstances and constraints. These analyses focus on only one dimension of attributions: locus of control (internal/external). In this analysis, we include a second dimension, thought to be a better predictor of attitudes in social psychological research: stability/instability. In addition to measuring lay theories of crime causation, we also test for “belief in redeemability” (or beliefs about the ability of deviants to change their ways). Our hypothesis is that this other dimension of personal attributions (stability/instability) may be as critical in explaining support for highly punitive criminal justice policies as beliefs about criminal responsibility. We find evidence supportive of this model in an analysis of data from postal survey of residents of six areas in England.

Disowning our shadow: a psychoanalytic approach to understanding punitive public attitudes

Punitive public attitudes cannot be easily explained by pointing to instrumental concerns (e.g., fear of crime, personal victimization, or rea or perceived levels of crime). Instead, numerous observers have suggested that public punitiveness is more a symptom of free-floating anxieties and insecurities resulting from social change than a rational response to crime problems. We argue that these public concerns might be better understood by drawing on the insights of psychoanalytic theory, and we review relevant theoretical work to that effect.

Determinants of public support for European Enlargement : a comparative analysis of public attitudes toward the accession of Turkey and Poland

Mémoire numérisé par la Division de la gestion de documents et des archives de l'Université de Montréal

Mediating punitiveness: understanding public attitudes towards work-related fatality cases

This paper concerns an empirical investigation into public attitudes towards work-related fatality cases, where organizational offenders cause the death of workers or members of the public. This issue is particularly relevant following the introduction of the Corporate Manslaughter and Corporate Homicide Act 2007 into UK law. Here, as elsewhere, the use of criminal law against companies reflects governmental concerns over public confidence in the law’s ability to regulate risk. The empirical findings demonstrate that high levels of public concern over these cases do not translate into punitive attitudes. Such cases are viewed rationally and constructively, and lead to instrumental rather than purely expressive enforcement preferences.